PseudoSABR

I don't think I asked you for empirical evidence; we're speculating about what is going to happen and what the counter-factual would have been. There's not empirical evidence of that. What evidence there is that Bernie would have lost isn't convincing to me, and there's a lot of confirmation bias (which I'm guilty of too) going on in this thread, given the paltry evidence available.

This is a ****ty situation that friends of mine have been abuzz about, and I don't blame them. The fault is with the university for not having protocol when bringing provocative speakers onto campus, which obviously the BP would be, after just weeks earlier a BP officer was found not guilty of murdering a Mexican citizen when he was throwing rocks over a fence, and two people were found guilty of misdemeanors for providing water to border crossers. The person "protesting" was dumb af, but that really isn't the point. The university should own up to its own failings.

No, you pointed to a single article that showed turnout was where it was expected. I'm saying that enthusiasm can bring turn out beyond what is expected, in fact it's the crux of my argument. And I'm also saying that Bernie might appeal to those Obama/Trump voters. There just isn't evidence for the counter-factual/hypothetical, so quit asking for it, and claiming victory. Low turnout didn't lose the 2016 election, but high turnout can win the 2020 election. Can you dig?

I never said I don't want to rely on turn out. I've always said that enthusiasm and authenticity were key. Whether or not turnout was the problem with 2016 (I think it certainly was in the states you mention), doesn't mean that turn-out in 2020 won't substantially help the Democrats. (Also part of my argument is that Bernie has appeal to these white working class voters that Clinton did not!) We all know so many people who did not vote for Hillary or Trump because they liked neither. By the time many of the states voted in the primary, Hillary had all but guaranteed the nominee because of the super delegate fiasco. Did you forget about that? That too affected turn out. I think the source of the defeat of 2016 is exactly what you are preaching now, calculated practicality towards the center, which rings of both elitism and lacks authenticity. (Clinton, Kerry, Gore redux; yawn). As far as empirical evidence, I'll continue to trumpet how popular those crazy socialist ideas are. And again, I point to Florida where turn-out drove Gillum-the-socialist to win the primary when polls had him as fourth and nearly took him to office in a state Trump won. Look, we all hate the word "socialist" and think it's some baggage, but I think over the campaign, it will be the policies that matter and the person authentically speaking behalf of those policies. (Nevermind who ever the candidate will be will be shamed with that label). Running anti-Trump, imho, is the weakest way to win the white house. I think any of the candidates can beat Trump; he's deeply unpopular (of course things could change).

Some of this might be true. But I'll keep saying turnout, turnout, turnout. Sure, a few people like Vanimal will stay home (which I kind of doubt, honestly; or at least I hope), but a ton of young people will be motivated. And I think we're all underselling Bernie's cross-appeal with Trump, that blue-collar white people liked Bernie too (a few of my family members as anecdotal evidence). I think Bernie plays way better in the rust belt than Clinton did. I'm not convinced Bernie is the best choice, or that I will vote for him in the primary. But the notion that Bernie as the nominee guarantees Trump isn't based in empirical evidence, and is a lot of self-projection. (And it's most coming from never-Trumper conservatives on twitter.)

He doesn't lie. He isn't sexist, racist, etc. He isn't corrupt. He isn't owned by private interest. Nearly all the candidates adopted policies he's championed in 2016. The anti-Bernie hate is dumbfounding. That you dislike his supporters is one thing, but Bernie is certainly not Donald Trump of the left. That's just one of the most disingenuous and glib takes I've ever heard on this board.

Really, that seems incredible to me.

So you believe there were Clinton voters who would have voted for Trump because of socialism? I think those are few. The babyboomer fear of socialism is disconnected with how popular those policies actually are. Hillary Clinton drove no enthusiasm. Bernie would have. And even in 2018, the Democrats almost placed a socialist as the governor of Florida.

I think Sanders would have won against Trump in 2016; there's a lot more cross over appeal between those two than one would think at first blush. Both speak with passion, and carry populist messages.

What is he trying to sick again, as well?

Look, I wouldn't call anyone a racist for live-and-let-live, but there is that saying that all evil needs to succeed is for good men to do nothing. It's the complicity that bothers me, and I don't think we should shield people from the consequences of that complicity and indifference. The term racist isn't very helpful in this regard, and we really don't have a term for such people, but if one isn't working to rid our society of systemic racism, one implicitly tolerates such a society.

The NY times, and I think even 538 had Clinton winning at a 90% chance. The polls were wrong, and I don't think they were even within the margin for error. I'll try to find some hard evidence of this, but I probably won't get to it this morning.

Those good polls that predicted the Trump victory?

I'm totally cynical of polling. There's a whole generation of young people (like 40 and under) who won't answer their phone if they don't recognize the number, and these same people won't take online surveys unless there's some content to access. So polling I think often is dependent upon people who are eager to share their opinion, which might be people like us, but I doubt we're representative of our demographic...

Is James Comey Running for President . . . or Savagely Pranking Us?

The left certainly shares in terms of using inflammatory rhetoric in inapplicable situations, sure. And I do mean both the citizens casting votes for those politicians and the politicians enacting self-centered policies. But clearly there's a spectrum here, and there's lots of reasonable conservatives and reasonable conservative positions, so I don't want to paint too broad a brush.

Trump Got No Bump From Mueller. He Should Worry.

YOU SHUT YOUR SMART MOUTH!

Castro is supposedly a great framer and at working with the pitching staff; I haven't heard much about Astudillo's defense behind the plate, but that they've played him every where but catcher suggests some concern.

Well done with the plural.

Don't go overboard with praise there, Chief.

I was responding to the luck statement, but yeah, the walks are a problem. The hits, not so much (because they aren't fielding independent), esp. just one was an extra base hit. I liked what I saw from Perez, even if I didn't like the results. Just one guys opinion.

You said you didn't vote for Trump, but you support him? What changed?

He gave up one extra base hit (the last a bat). The luck went against him with the five base hits. He looked pretty talented out there, even if the results didn't bear it out.

What happened? I flipped over to the Auburn/Kentucky game